Watching the debates and feel a little kicked in the gut....

[ctozrn]

So BOTH VP candidates agree that they don't support gay marriage?? I am supporting with all my heart and soul the Obama/Biden ticket so this was just a slap in the face. I know that they are the "kinder" administration to the LGBT cause but right now, watching the debate it just doesn't feel like it.

Christine

[Zerbie]

I'm sorry, sweetie. :'(:love::love: :love:

[Alecto]

We've never had a true "friend" in the white house, and this election will be the same no matter the outcome. There's just some folks who're worse than others.

[sauu4equality]

I agree this is BS. But recognition for our relationships and equal protection through civil unions is far better than having a right wing view of gay people in the white house. This is precisely why I don't watch the debates. Biden is just trying to get votes from independents. This does disturb me because Hilary would have likely used the word "marriage" but I suppose we have to pick our battles...I have to say I really miss that woman right now...I don't understand why my other Dem friends were so against her. It is painful to hear people speak about how "great it is to see a woman making history."

Well, enough about spilled milk...there is a good read in the Advocate about Joe Biden and gay rights (link below..the lower one). He has a solid record of supporting us and, while he won't use the word marriage, he would constitute a friend in the White House (well technically I guess the Veep doesn't live there, but you know what I mean). Read these two articles in the Advocate...they might make you feel better about Obama/Biden. FYI neither of them are 100% allies, but they are leagues ahead of McPalin...

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid60227.asp
http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid60855.asp

[ctozrn]

Thanks for the links to the articles, I will read them. I didn't hear Biden even say that he supported civil unions during that part of the debate. Just for the record...I did see Hilary in an interview say that she did not support marriage but did support civil unions. I saw Barak say the same thing on the "Ellen" show. During the debate the moderator flat out asked him if he supported gay marriage and he said no. Maybe if they had talked about it longer he would have said that he did indeed support civil unions.

I guess this is the best we can get. :(

Christine

[Zerbie]

Thanks for the links to the articles, I will read them. I didn't hear Biden even say that he supported civil unions during that part of the debate. Just for the record...I did see Hilary in an interview say that she did not support marriage but did support civil unions. I saw Barak say the same thing on the "Ellen" show. During the debate the moderator flat out asked him if he supported gay marriage and he said no. Maybe if they had talked about it longer he would have said that he did indeed support civil unions.

I guess this is the best we can get. :(

Christine

Okay, I've watched it now.

Biden clearly stated strong support for civil protections to gay relationships including many benefits such as hospital visitation (and he listed several other specific benefits as well but I've forgotten exactly which ones,) as civil protections guaranteed to Americans under the constitution. He said he would leave the word 'marriage' to be discussed/debated by churches and faith organizations if they wish to recognize those relationships as marriage. He made a clear distinction between the civil sphere, and the sphere of religion and faith.

The way I heard it, it was a strong positive. He is with us nearly all the way. Palin's answer really disturbed me, otoh.

[Daniel]

Both campaigns have had the stated positions from the get-go, that is, both are not in favor of gay marriage. What wasn't asked, however, was each canmpaign's position on a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

On this issue they differ. Obama is against an amendment, while McCain is for it.

The different that I heard was that the Obama campaign would leave the matter of gay marriage to the States, while the McCain campaign would seek legislate against marriage on the federal level.

[nervezapper]

I think the Obama/Biden stance is all based upon votes. If they outright said they were pro-same sex marriage they would probably lose the election. JMHO

But I'll take a little progress towards the right direction over no progress at all.

[ctozrn]

Maybe I was being a little sensitive. I just heard them both say no to "gay marriage" I did hear Biden being more supportive but he did say NO to gay marriage. I know that overall, he and Obama are supportive in terms of civil unions it just didn't feel very supportive tonight. It seemed to me that he was trying to run from that whole subject. They both seemed uncomfortable with the whole thing. Maybe it is just me and my hormones....

[ctozrn]

Nerveszapper- that is EXACTLY what I thought and felt!!!

Like you, I will take what I can get!!

One more thing.....how many times do we have to hear the word MAVERICK?!?!?!

Christine

[nervezapper]

Nerveszapper- that is EXACTLY what I thought and felt!!!

Like you, I will take what I can get!!

One more thing.....how many times do we have to hear the word MAVERICK?!?!?!

Christine

YEAH!! I'm not alone in my thinking. I think having someone all of the sudden pro same-sex marriage would be too much to fast and may push those on the fence back to the wrong side. It's taken many of us years to be comfortable with it within ourselves and we can't expect those who do not live with it to suddenly embrace it.

[Rick336]

I recorded the entire debate on video tape. Here's how the gay marriage issue was handled by both candidates word for word:



MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: The next round of questions start with you Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same sex benefits to couples?

SENATOR BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same sex benefits? Absolutely, positively. Look, In an Obama-Biden Administration there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the constitution we should be granting......same sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, etc. That's only fair. It's what the constitution calls for. And so we do support, we do support making sure that committed couples and the same sex marys are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, the rights of visitation, the rights of insurance, the rights or ownership as heterosexual couples do.

(I rewound the tape several times to make sure I heard exactly what Biden said. He actually says "same sex marys". I feel sure however that it was just a slip of the tongue and he wasn't really calling us "marys") :lol:


MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: Governor [Palin], would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the country?

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman and unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead. But I also want to clarify if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves. You know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends that even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue; some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue, but in that tolerance also no one would ever propose in the McCain-Palin administration to do anything to prohibit say visitations in a hospital or a contract being signed and negotiated between parties. But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman and I think through nuances we could go round and round about what that actually means but I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.


MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuances Senator [Biden]. Do you support gay marriage?

SENATOR BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically a decision to be able to be left to the faiths and people who practice their faiths determining what you call it. The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word obviously, that she thinks there should be no civil distinction, none what-so-ever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

MODERATOR GWIN IFILL TO PALIN: Is that what you said?

GOVERNOR PALIN: Your question to him is whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

MODERATOR GWIN IFILL: Wonderful. You agree then on that so let's move to foreign policy.



Rick

[wmanion]

Palin did not go into any detail about what our civil rights should be and I do feel that Biden did. He included real estate, insurance and hospital visitation rights. I found it interesting that CNN's poll of undecideds had Biden winning the debate while Fox news had Palin winning the date 89% to 11%. It will be interesting what the other polls reflect tomorrow. The debate did not surprise me. I felt that she would be prepared because she has been studying the issues now that she is the vice president nominee and they have been drilling (not a pun) the issues into her head. However, she avoided answering many of the questions and talked about what she wanted to talk about.

[sauu4equality]

Maybe I was being a little sensitive. I just heard them both say no to "gay marriage" I did hear Biden being more supportive but he did say NO to gay marriage. I know that overall, he and Obama are supportive in terms of civil unions it just didn't feel very supportive tonight. It seemed to me that he was trying to run from that whole subject. They both seemed uncomfortable with the whole thing. Maybe it is just me and my hormones....

You weren't being sensitive. Both camps feel like Gay Rights is not an issue that will help them to talk about. You were absolutely justified in feeling the way you did watching the debates. I'm surprised they did this given what happened in 2004 (rampant depression in the GLBT community because of overt hatred in the debates). But this is why I don't watch the debates. I'm even more worried about the African American community in this election...the media and Stanford researchers have stated and found that this election is likely to be won by McCain because of Obama's race. What does this do to a community that already exhibits the worst health in the nation?? See my post in the thread about race started today.

[Daniel]

Thanks for transcribing and posting the dialogue.

Perhaps it's my own sensitivity, but last night, I chafed at hearing Palin utter the words "straight up" and 'tolerant', the latter word said as if it was a badge of honor. The fundi stuff was shining through at that point: one has to be standing over something in order to tolerate it. One has to be better than.

And then she went on latter in the debate about the liberal elites on the East Coast.

Palin honey! Let me tell you something.

Without elitism, there would be no books in libraries, no music in church, no art, no science, no cure for disease, no electricity, no nothing!

Elitism is not a four letter word. It is the basis for culture as we know it. Don't bit the hand had feeds you. It just might bite back.

Being an elitist is not looking down one's nose at another human being. Being an elitist is being a master of one's craft- which is something you could learn from. And I'm not talking about being skilled at evading questions. I'm talking about knowing enough to answer them.

That's the real straight talk.

[sjbouza]

But not well enough I think. As to the main topic of this post, I think she gaffed a little bit with her reply to civil unions and Biden took advantage of it. He did this by "assuming" that she is for civil unions, and she has stated that she is not. She indicated this with her answer, that homosexual couple can have contracts to get the job done. I am paraphrasing. That is why when the moderator asked her if that is what she meant she sidestepped the question.

That is the point that I want to make. Is it just me or did others notice when it came down to the tough questions she just didn't even come close to any relevant answer. She was so all over the board, even at one point saying that she may not answer the questions like Washington or the moderator wants her to. Man I would have been happy if she just actually answered the questions that were asked, not just going back to how she "saved" Alaska from the big bad oil companies.

In my opinion, this woman answered the questions she was coached on well, but when it came to something her coaches didn't cover she reverted back to "talking real to the people". In other words, "I have no clue about this question but I will let Joe six pack know that I am just like him." I liked the statement she made about knowing how it is now-a-days for everyone, worrying about affording health insurance and paying their bills. Wow really, she has to worry if the state is going to pay her Governmental salary and free health coverage? I would like to have those worries too.

For a woman that grew up with a silver spoon, she has no clue about what the middle class is going through. Never has and never will. I wish she would stop talking to us like she understands. Be real Palin, you don't know what it is like to work just to pay for gas to get yourself to work.

OMG!!!! I am getting upset now. I will stop with this rant. As some of you may remember I can go of on tangents and it is all over then, you will be reading for days.

Peace everyone. Love to all,
Scott

[u-dog]

That is the point that I want to make. Is it just me or did others notice when it came down to the tough questions she just didn't even come close to any relevant answer. She was so all over the board, even at one point saying that she may not answer the questions like Washington or the moderator wants her to. Man I would have been happy if she just actually answered the questions that were asked, not just going back to how she "saved" Alaska from the big bad oil companies.

In my opinion, this woman answered the questions she was coached on well, but when it came to something her coaches didn't cover she reverted back to "talking real to the people".
Scott

Scott,

You are are right on the money here. Polly and I noticed the same thing. If the question seemed to land on one of her index cards she answered it. If the question required independent thought or on the spot analysis she just delivered any old answer that she happened to have in her hand. It was like she was saying "Well, I don't know the answer to that question but here is an answer to a question you didn't ask"

Here is the maddening thing : NONE of the pundits liberal or conservative are calling her on this. They are all congratulating her that she didn't say something stupid. Great! You're qualified to be Vice-president Because you didn't put your foot in your mouth.

I'm afraid that the whole American electorate is just as dumb as stones ... including the media.

[sauu4equality]

Scott,



I'm afraid that the whole American electorate is just as dumb as stones ... including the media.

*echoes sentiments and nods in agreement*

Liberal media my...

[Daniel]

This writer is making the same point I made earlier on this thread, except he's doing a bang-up job. Could not agree more.

Know what? I was AoG. And so is Palin, though she's been trying to distance herself from it since the utube vids came out! And the AoG are still, as far as I can tell, very anti-intellectual. I went to Evangel College- a liberal (choke!) arts college. And the other AoG schools thought that Evangel was beyond the pale. Not bible centered enough. The pentacostals - historically- are an anti- intellectual culture. Not to be forgotten.




"The Palin Debate: How To Teach An Infant To High Five"

Michael Seitzman, for The Huffington Post
Posted October 3, 2008 | 02:19 PM (EST)

Every parent has done it. And we all have to endure it. "Watch this! She high-fives!" We dutifully and gently hold up our hand and coo like a moron as the baby reaches up and touches it. The parent giggles proudly, "She's a genius!" Listen, I hate to burst your bubble, but they all high-five. Even my dog has learned to high-five. Which leads me to the obvious....a pit bull can learn to high five.

One prominent conservative journalist says that Palin didn't learn the easy way by going to Harvard, she learned the hard way, on the streets. If I ever need open heart surgery I'm not going to go to one of those doctors who learned the easy way in medical school. I want someone who learned surgery on the streets of Wasilla. For hundreds of years, conservatives have sent their sons and daughters to our greatest universities, but suddenly they've decided to surrender those admirable values in exchange for pandering and condescending to the people they endeavor to inspire. The Republican party's contrived contempt and manufactured mistrust of intellect is not only counter to what they've always believed, but it is terribly reckless and dangerous to the country they claim to put first. To indoctrinate a nation to renounce education and intellect is to shamefully discourage and suppress the very thing that America has not only historically exalted but needs so desperately right now.

They talk of competing in the worlds of science and medicine, technology and economics and yet present us with a presidential candidate who has repeatedly shown and even admitted that he knows very little about such things, has repeatedly voted against funding for education, but will repeat at every opportunity that he is an expert at winning wars, though he's never actually won one. They talk about teaching our children to compete in the global economy and international relations and yet they present us with a vice presidential candidate who has to memorize talking points and cynically condescend to us with winks and "doggonits" in order to conceal her astounding and terrifying lack of genuine knowledge.

Is Sarah Palin really the best and the brightest? Or are they no longer interested in the best and the brightest? Shouldn't a leader be smarter than us? Shouldn't a leader be educated? Shouldn't a leader inspire us by example, be curious as well as ambitious, humble as well as formidable, gracious as well as robust, and learned as well as knowable? Folksy does not have to mean ignorant, regular does not have to mean ordinary and earnest does not have to mean frivolous. For an example of this, look at one Joe Biden. To call him a "Washington elitist" or a typical "east coast politician" is to shamelessly insult the type of American we like to claim as unique and special to our nation. Ironically, Joe Biden is the very type of person Sarah Palin aspires to be - a "real American" who tirelessly and whole-heartedly works for his country, who never forgets where he's from, and who constantly looks forward to where we should be going. This is who Sarah Palin not only aspires to be but already claims to be. But do not be fooled, Sarah Palin is no Joe Biden.

Sarah Palin could never be a Joe Biden because Sarah Palin and those like her do not aspire to transcend anything more than lowered expectations. Her foresight and ambition only reach as high as she tells you to look. The terms "Joe Six Pack" and "Hockey Moms of America" are mere code for the type of person she assumes won't aspire to anything more than mediocrity. The talent of Sarah Palin is in her ability to charm some with her folksy demeanor while concealing her stunning vacuousness. The obscenity of John McCain is in his selfish willingness to reignite a culture war by attempting to provide someone like Sarah Palin entree to an office that she should only see from the other side of the velvet rope on the White House tour.

In many ways, last night's debate was a David and Goliath match-up. Not because Joe Biden is a towering and formidable foe to a less-prepared civilian. Look again and tell me if you can tell the hero from the monster. Need some help? Goliath is the one who is condescending, arrogant, sarcastic, combative, insulting, childish, patronizing, untruthful and divisive. The monster doesn't lead, it misleads. It doesn't inspire, it frightens. It doesn't protect, it provokes. You recognize it now, right? The monster is what has dominated us for eight long years. Sarah Palin is just the brand new model.

The monster marches and devours and never sleeps and it can only be defeated by its opposite: Hope, Courage, Knowledge, Kindness, and Grace. Those are the traits we saw in Joe Biden last night. They're the traits we see in Barack Obama. But most importantly, those are the traits they see in us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-seitzman/the-palin-debate-how-to-t_b_131693.html

[tdogg]

Both campaigns have had the stated positions from the get-go, that is, both are not in favor of gay marriage. What wasn't asked, however, was each canmpaign's position on a federal amendment to ban gay marriage.

On this issue they differ. Obama is against an amendment, while McCain is for it.

The different that I heard was that the Obama campaign would leave the matter of gay marriage to the States, while the McCain campaign would seek legislate against marriage on the federal level.

Daniel is right on here. While it hurts that neither Obama nor Biden believe in full equality (let's face it, 'civil union' and 'some benefits' isn't full equality), they are against putting in any federal limitations. McCain has stated more than once, if the states (particularly his - Arizona) aren't successful in banning same sex marriage, he will pursue this at the federal level. We saw last night that Palin is adamantly against same sex marriage (and pretty much same sex anything). McCain and Palin in the white house would be disastrous for GLBT equality. With Obama and Biden, our progress may be somewhat slowed, but we will still see progress. It's a no brainer for me, especially considering I agree with the democrats on very many levels/issues.

I thought Palin at least didn't totally screw it up. But she avoided answering questions which she is obviously not knowledgeable on, and was good at redirecting the discussion to her rah rah cheers of McCain. The scariest thing was her strong statement on increasing powers of the VP. That, I think, says it all about what her intent is in being McCain's running mate. Maybe she thinks that will eventually lead to the presidency and then she can bring on Armageddon and the 'rapture'??? AHHHH!

[Gennee]

I didn't watch the debate but I find that a candidate will try to answer a question depending on how the question is phrased. They may not answer it if they don't like the question. The LGBT issue is a political hot potato unfortunately. This is why local elections are so important. Washington can only do so much.

Gennee

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/10/evan-wolfson-on.html


Evan Wolfson on the Biden-Palin Debate and the Freedom to Marry

This message regarding last night's debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin arrived in our mailbox from Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry, the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. I'm happy to republish it here.

As I've noted to some colleagues and reporters, analyzing last night's exchange on same-sex couples and marriage:

The good news is that Senator Biden expressed his belief that gay and non-gay couples should be treated equally under the law, and committed to support for the incidents of marriage, the legal protections and responsibilities that come with marriage. The bad news is that he stopped short of supporting actual equality through the freedom to marry itself, the only way to provide the full security, clarity, and protections that marriage alone brings, and failed (as did the moderator) to point out the inconsistencies and falsehoods in Governor Palin's answer. His comments garbled the distinction between religious rites of marriage, properly left to religions to decide, and the legal right to marry, regulated by the government, which should not discriminate. Supporters of gay equality should not be using the anti-gay forces' false talking-point (introduced by Governor Palin) that ending gay couples' exclusion from marriage is "redefining" marriage; marriage is not "defined" by who is denied it.

The good news in Governor Palin's answer was that she felt obliged to go out of her way to proclaim herself "tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves," a position that, if true, raises the question of why the law should then discriminate against those Americans, whether in marriage or other legal mechanisms such as domestic partnership (which she opposed in Alaska and tried to overturn by constitutional amendment).

Her assertion of non-judgmental "tolerance" is inconsistent with her chuch's hosting an anti-gay "change through prayer" program that she has refused to repudiate. And her claim that "not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties" is at odds with Senator McCain's support for anti-gay constitutional amendments such as the one in Arizona that would have impeded legal acknowledgment of gay couples and denied the range of protections, from marriage down to specific legal measures such as partnership recognition, to unmarried couples, gay and non-gay.

McCain's and Palin's actions -- nearly always rejecting pro-gay steps and measures, nearly always supporting anti-gay positions -- is the worst news.

Overall, then, the bad news is that while one party's positions are immensely better than the others, both candidates failed to support full equality for America's gay families (despite Governor Palin's invocation of "equal rights" as an American value in her closing); the worse news is that the real and immense difference between their actual positions -- one supporting actual movement toward equality and fairness, the other offering bland assurances belied by actual policy positions deepening discrimination -- may have gotten lost.

And, to end on a positive, it is good news that yet again we see that the discussion around marriage equality is moving politicians, sincerely or otherwise, to greater acknowledgment of gay families and the wrongness of discrimination against them. That one presidential ticket is indeed committed to specific legal measures to reduce discrimination and, indeed, tacit support for marriage equality, even if they won't yet embrace or explain it, is perhaps best of all.

— Evan Wolfson, FreedomtoMarry.org

[tymejumper]

So BOTH VP candidates agree that they don't support gay marriage?? I am supporting with all my heart and soul the Obama/Biden ticket so this was just a slap in the face. I know that they are the "kinder" administration to the LGBT cause but right now, watching the debate it just doesn't feel like it.

Christine



One of my co workers told me that no matter where I voted, the VP picks did not support gay marriage.

He said that even though he is Catholic, he likes me and respects me and likes my wife. He does not agree and he sees it as blessed by God if we are commited to each other.(which was pretty big for his religion I think). He seems to be having a very hard time with liking me and blalncing his religion with "those" type of people who "choose" the "gay lifestyle". Now that he knows me he can't find me as sick or a terible sinner(whatever they teach).

I was very upset about it but he said that the slaves got free, it just took time. He thinks that things will change for us. I pray he is right.

[tymejumper]

He said he would leave the word 'marriage' to be discussed/debated by churches and faith organizations if they wish to recognize those relationships as marriage.


I guess it does not matter if they call my marriage a "union form Hades" as long as I get the same rights and protections as straights. If it's all about that "M" word, lets get over it and pick a different name. After all, I pay my taxes, if they can't give me the same rights, they need to send my taxes back!

Maybe we need to call all marriages UNIONS only, unless they are done by a religious offiant. Then everyone straight and gay alike would be the same, if you get married by judges it's a union. Otherwise, a marriage, let the churches decide. They really need to lighten up on the "marriage" word, they are really very anal about it.

[Matt Algren]

I guess it does not matter if they call my marriage a "union form Hades" as long as I get the same rights and protections as straights. If it's all about that "M" word, lets get over it and pick a different name. After all, I pay my taxes, if they can't give me the same rights, they need to send my taxes back!

Maybe we need to call all marriages UNIONS only, unless they are done by a religious offiant. Then everyone straight and gay alike would be the same, if you get married by judges it's a union. Otherwise, a marriage, let the churches decide. They really need to lighten up on the "marriage" word, they are really very anal about it.
Calling it marriage is of utmost importance. Otherwise, we're talking about separate but equal, and that's not ever good enough.

If we were starting from scratch, starting back on the day when straight civil marriages were synced up with church marriages, that might be a reasonable solution. But it's too late to say "Well, we're not calling them civil marriages, we're calling them civil unions." It would be a wink to the right while they tell the gays that they can't have a marriage; a pat on the head while we head to the back of the bus.

Besides which, if you think the anti-gay groups would stand for fifty-year marriages suddenly and retroactively being called civil unions, you've got another thing coming. As far as they're concerned the government is [their brand of] Christian, and moving just a little bit is unthinkable to them.

I'm not happy with the quick answer Sen. Biden gave (he'd obviously rehearsed it) the other night, but I think that's as good as it's going to get this election. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." He's still right.

[antiochian]

I was a bit disappointed that the Matthew Shepard Act and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" weren't brought up in the VP debate... two other very important things that affect us.

[sjbouza]

Calling it marriage is of utmost importance. Otherwise, we're talking about separate but equal, and that's not ever good enough.

Matt,

I totally agree with you that we must have it be called marriage. However, we need to get something, even if it is separate but equal. Now don't jump down my throat just yet, listen to my reasonings.

If we can get civil unions that can have what seem to be all of the same rights and benefits then we have something to work from. You see it in Mass. Couples are married in that state, however they are still facing problems with insurance and other benefits that are guaranteed through marriage. Now this is because of the DOMA, companies are falling back on this little piece of wonderment in denying benefits and rights because the state the company may reside in does not recognize same sex marriage.

Now with that in mind, I hope you can follow my logic. It may be the logic of a confused and twisted mind, but it makes some sense to me. Anyway, if we can get nationwide "civil unions" that give us all the rights and benefits that we are suppose to have then we will have a basis in the courts when we are denied insurance or other benefits. You know there is going to be companies out there that will deny coverage or inclusion because they only recognize "marriage" and not "civil unions". So now we will have basis to use the "separate but equal" portion of the law in the courts. Once we have something to grab hold of then we can take the next step.

It seems like some in the LGBT community want to jump to the top of the mountain from the bottom and will be happy with nothing else. We need to take it one step at a time. Look how far we have come just in the past 20 years. Hell when I was in school for someone to come out was suicide. Now a days, I am not saying it is all roses, but it is a heck of a lot more acceptable. I don't mean to say that the kids today don't still have difficulty, but that society is becoming a lot more acceptant of who and what we are. Lets not deminish what our forefathers have done for us by trying to get all or nothing. I think if we take that attitude that we will see the struggle be a lot longer and have a greater chance of failure. If we can take what we can get, so what if it isn't what we want, that can be changed in the courts later.

I guess what I am trying to say is lets get something even if it is "civil unions". At least then we will have a basis to work from. Right now we have very little if anything. It is getting better and I know we will see it in my lifetime, but we just need to do it the right way. We need to stop going for the top of the mountain without taking the little steps to get there.

If you make a huge leap you are more likely to fail, it is the small steps that eventually will lead you to victory.

Peace and Love,
Scott

PS

Yes it is a shame that other LGBT issues were not brought up. But I am amazed that she did have the guts to bring up the issue of marriage. I give her many props for taking on that issue with the candidates.

[tymejumper]

you make a huge leap you are more likely to fail, it is the small steps that eventually will lead you to victory.



Exactly. That is what I was saying, I don't realy care what they call it, I want my rights. It is true that a journey of a tousands steps begin with but one. It WILL take baby steps. The heterosexual community at large is still very uptight about the whole word of Marriage. They support us having rights and such but they do not want to lose the exclusivity of that word. Silly? Of course it is, but if thet is hwere we start, then so be it.

I don't believe that we will have to go to the back of the bus, but we may have to fight as the african americans have for their rights. We at Soulforce do believe in the ways of Martin Luther King. We are going to have to follow his lead and get there little by little.

My concern at this point is am I going to be able to protect my family? Will I be able to make decisions reguarding my partners life in the hospital? Will my biologial children go to her, if I die, as their father is not involved in their lives? If she dies, will I be able to get her pention to pay off the kids college, the house and such, what if she loses her job, it's automotive, will I be able to cover her medical bills on my insurance? I don't need the word Marriage to define these things for me and my family. I ned the actual Rights and protections that go along with that particular word. The evolution of the word will come along with time.

Much Metta,
Rebekah

[Daniel]

Exactly. That is what I was saying, I don't realy care what they call it, I want my rights.


So do we all, that is, want 'our rights'.

Something very important should not be lost here. And that is this: words matter. Very much.

I live in NY and have only to look west to NJ where civil unions are being held. Guess what? There is much litigation in NJ regarding civil unions. Why? Because companies say they don't have to recognize civil-unioned couples and give them health benefits etc. Why? They aren't married.

Do straight couples have to go to court and sue for their rights under the law. Nope. It's just taken for granted.

Marriage is important.

[Matt Algren]

If there's one thing we can learn from the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, it's that assurances of equality in all but name aren't upheld by the assurers. And that's what this is. We're not talking about gay marriage, we're talking about Civil Rights.

But there's a practical aspect as well. There's a host of legal ramifications involved, and by changing the name to civil unions or whatever, the government would be creating a billion new problems. We're not just talking about getting the tax benefit and property rights, there are ancillary considerations as well.

If my (wholly theoretical :() husband is in the hospital, who is allowed in the room? Who has access to medical records? Who has automatic POA or POA HC? What kind of enforcement is standard, and is it the same as married couples?

Current US law prohibits federal funding for sex education programs that don't teach abstinence until marriage, therefore there is no expectation of sex ed for LGBT kids. (I'm not making that up.) Will that law be changed to 'abstinence until marriage or civil union'? In which case, will the funding be expanded to include sex ed for LGBTs?

If my employer has a program that recognizes spouses (I once worked at a company that sent out Wedding Anniversary presents), am I assured that my civil union will be given equal treatment? If my employer automatically sends flowers to a funeral of family members including spouse and spouse's parents, am I guaranteed to find the same treatment if my spouse's parent dies? How about if my parents are a same-gender civil union? Will both fathers be covered?


I'm not trying to be greedy or petty, but if we're going to call it equal, you better believe I want somebody making sure it IS equal in every way. And that's exponentially easier to do and more likely if we don't have to comb through the law books and re-codify every instance of every law that pertains to marriage.

[Matt Algren]

I'm totally ripping off myself from another forum the other day, but what the heck. It's germane.

This article from Andrew Sullivan touches on the social aspect of gay marriage rather than the legal, but maybe it'll help illustrate the problem. I'm only posting the last half, so click over to read the whole thing (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/gay-marriage).

The political theorist Hannah Arendt, addressing the debate over miscegenation laws during the civil-rights movement of the 1950s, put it clearly enough:

The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs.

Note that Arendt put the right to marry before even the right to vote. And this is how many gay people of the next generation see it. Born into straight families and reared to see homosexuality as a form of difference, not disability, they naturally wonder why they would be excluded from the integral institution of their own families’ lives and history. They see this exclusion as unimaginable—as unimaginable as straight people would if they were told that they could not legally marry someone of their choosing. No other institution has an equivalent power to include people in their own familial narrative or civic history as deeply or as powerfully as civil marriage does. And the next generation see themselves as people first and gay second.

Born in a different era, I reached that conclusion through more pain and fear and self-loathing than my 20-something fellow homosexuals do today. But it was always clear to me nonetheless. It just never fully came home to me until I too got married.

It happened first when we told our families and friends of our intentions. Suddenly, they had a vocabulary to describe and understand our relationship. I was no longer my partner’s “friend” or “boyfriend”; I was his fiancé. Suddenly, everyone involved themselves in our love. They asked how I had proposed; they inquired when the wedding would be; my straight friends made jokes about marriage that simply included me as one of them. At that first post-engagement Christmas with my in-laws, I felt something shift. They had always been welcoming and supportive. But now I was family. I felt an end—a sudden, fateful end—to an emotional displacement I had experienced since childhood.

The wedding occurred last August in Massachusetts in front of a small group of family and close friends. And in that group, I suddenly realized, it was the heterosexuals who knew what to do, who guided the gay couple and our friends into the rituals and rites of family. Ours was not, we realized, a different institution, after all, and we were not different kinds of people. In the doing of it, it was the same as my sister’s wedding and we were the same as my sister and brother-in-law. The strange, bewildering emotions of the moment, the cake and reception, the distracted children and weeping mothers, the morning’s butterflies and the night’s drunkenness: this was not a gay marriage; it was a marriage.

And our families instantly and for the first time since our early childhood became not just institutions in which we were included, but institutions that we too owned and perpetuated. My sister spoke of her marriage as if it were interchangeable with my own, and my niece and nephew had no qualms in referring to my husband as their new uncle. The embossed invitations and the floral bouquets and the fear of fluffing our vows: in these tiny, bonding gestures of integration, we all came to see an alienating distinction become a unifying difference.

It was a moment that shifted a sense of our own identity within our psyches and even our souls. Once this happens, the law eventually follows. In California this spring, it did.

[Daniel]

I'm totally ripping off myself from another forum the other day, but what the heck. It's germane.

That is, steal from themselves (and others too!)

Guys like J.S. Bach and Handel. They were famous for it.

So- you are in good company.

Steal from the best! That's what I say. ;)